Literature DB >> 26158050

Comparative analysis of image-based phenotypes of mammographic density and parenchymal patterns in distinguishing between BRCA1/2 cases, unilateral cancer cases, and controls.

Hui Li1, Maryellen L Giger1, Li Lan1, Jyothi Janardanan1, Charlene A Sennett1.   

Abstract

We statistically compare the contributions of parenchymal phenotypes to mammographic density in distinguishing between high-risk cases and low-risk controls. The age-matched evaluation included computerized mammographic assessment of breast percent density (PD) and parenchymal patterns (phenotypes of coarseness and contrast) from radiographic texture analysis (RTA) of the full-field digital mammograms from 456 cases: 53 women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, 75 with unilateral cancer, and 328 at low risk of developing breast cancer. Image-based phenotypes of parenchymal pattern coarseness and contrast were each found to significantly discriminate between the groups; however, PD did not. From ROC analysis, PD alone yielded area under the fitted ROC curve (AUC) values of 0.53 ([Formula: see text]) and 0.57 ([Formula: see text]) in the classification task between BRCA1/2 gene-mutation carriers and low-risk women, and between unilateral cancer and low-risk women, respectively. In a round-robin evaluation with Bayesian artificial neural network (BANN) analysis, RTA yielded AUC values of 0.81 (95% confidence interval [0.71, 0.89]) and 0.70 (95% confidence interval [0.63, 0.77]) between the BRCA1/2 gene-mutation carriers and low-risk women, and between unilateral cancer and low-risk women, respectively. These results show that high-risk and low-risk women have different mammographic parenchymal patterns with significantly higher discrimination resulting from characteristics of the parenchymal patterns than just the breast PD.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer risk assessment; breast percent density; coarseness; contrast; full-field digital mammograms; image-based phenotypes; mammographic parenchymal patterns; quantitative imaging analysis; radiographic texture analysis

Year:  2014        PMID: 26158050      PMCID: PMC4478852          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.1.3.031009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  30 in total

1.  Mammographic patterns as a predictive biomarker of breast cancer risk: effect of tamoxifen.

Authors:  C Atkinson; R Warren; S A Bingham; N E Day
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 2.  Mammographic densities as a marker of human breast cancer risk and their use in chemoprevention.

Authors:  N F Boyd; L J Martin; J Stone; C Greenberg; S Minkin; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.075

3.  Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for assessing breast cancer risk: effect of ROI size and location.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Zhimin Huo; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Li Lan; Barbara L Weber; Ioana Bonta
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Maryellen L Giger; Hui Li; Ulrich Bick; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 5.  Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  N F Boyd; G A Lockwood; J W Byng; D L Tritchler; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Association of computerized mammographic parenchymal pattern measure with breast cancer risk: a pilot case-control study.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Yi-Ta Wu; Chuan Zhou; Mark A Helvie; Alexander Tsodikov; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  A F Saftlas; R N Hoover; L A Brinton; M Szklo; D R Olson; M Salane; J N Wolfe
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Wolfe's parenchymal pattern and percentage of the breast with mammographic densities: redundant or complementary classifications?

Authors:  Jacques Brisson; Caroline Diorio; Benoît Mâsse
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Texture features from mammographic images and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Armando Manduca; Michael J Carston; John J Heine; Christopher G Scott; V Shane Pankratz; Kathy R Brandt; Thomas A Sellers; Celine M Vachon; James R Cerhan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  13 in total

1.  Radiomics robustness assessment and classification evaluation: A two-stage method demonstrated on multivendor FFDM.

Authors:  Kayla Robinson; Hui Li; Li Lan; David Schacht; Maryellen Giger
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Breast density estimation from high spectral and spatial resolution MRI.

Authors:  Hui Li; William A Weiss; Milica Medved; Hiroyuki Abe; Gillian M Newstead; Gregory S Karczmar; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-12-28

Review 3.  NCTN Assessment on Current Applications of Radiomics in Oncology.

Authors:  Ke Nie; Hania Al-Hallaq; X Allen Li; Stanley H Benedict; Jason W Sohn; Jean M Moran; Yong Fan; Mi Huang; Michael V Knopp; Jeff M Michalski; James Monroe; Ceferino Obcemea; Christina I Tsien; Timothy Solberg; Jackie Wu; Ping Xia; Ying Xiao; Issam El Naqa
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Quantitative texture analysis: robustness of radiomics across two digital mammography manufacturers' systems.

Authors:  Kayla R Mendel; Hui Li; Li Lan; Cathleen M Cahill; Victoria Rael; Hiroyuki Abe; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-09-19

5.  Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer: Additive Value of Radiomics of Breast Parenchyma.

Authors:  Hui Li; Kayla R Mendel; Li Lan; Deepa Sheth; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 29.146

Review 6.  Review of quantitative multiscale imaging of breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-01-22

7.  Using Convolutional Neural Networks for Enhanced Capture of Breast Parenchymal Complexity Patterns Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Andrew Oustimov; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Lauren Pantalone; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Variation in algorithm implementation across radiomics software.

Authors:  Joseph J Foy; Kayla R Robinson; Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Hania Al-Hallaq; Samuel G Armato
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-12-04

9.  Deep learning in breast cancer risk assessment: evaluation of convolutional neural networks on a clinical dataset of full-field digital mammograms.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Benjamin Q Huynh; Natalia O Antropova
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-09-13

10.  Deciphering Genomic Underpinnings of Quantitative MRI-based Radiomic Phenotypes of Invasive Breast Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yitan Zhu; Hui Li; Wentian Guo; Karen Drukker; Li Lan; Maryellen L Giger; Yuan Ji
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.